K. D. SHAHI, J. Petitioner Girish Kumar Misra, who was appointed on 14-8-1996 as IVth class employee by the District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur on ad hoc basis, has filed the present writ peti tion for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 8-8-1997 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee on 14-8- 1996 in Government Higher Secondary School, Kant district Shahjahanpur. The appoint ment letter (Annexure to the writ peti tion) specifically mentioned that he was appointed on 14-8-1996 on ad hoc basis for a period of two and half months only with a clear understanding that his services were purely temporary and can be terminated at any time without any notice. 3. On 28-10-1996 his period of ap pointment was extended till 14-1-1997. His services were extended from 15-1-1997 to 28-2-1997 and again from 1-3-1997 to 14-5-1997. Thereafter the period of his services was not extended. 4. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 21871 of 1997 which was decided by this Court on 10-7-1997. In the judgment itself it has been specifically stated that the appointment of the petitioner was for a short period and his services were ex tended from time to time and he could not have claimed as his right to continue on the post. However, this Court ordered that in case the work and conduct of the petitioner were found satisfactory, till any regular selection was made, it was open for the District Inspector of Schools to con sider regarding the appointment of the petitioner on a representation being rate by him. The writ petition was dismissed. No order was passed by this Court neces sarily to appoint the petitioner. On a rep resentation having been made the petitioner was again appointed on 23-7-97, vide Annexure 8 to the writ petition, on ad hoc basis. Then again by the im pugned order dated 8-8-1997 the District Inspector of Schools passed an order that by notification dated 19th August, 1992 it was informed that the appointment on ad hoc basis is banned from 29-1-1991. Therefore, the appointment of Girish Kumar Misra was an illegal and as such it was cancelled. 5. The petitioner has alleged that he has neither been afforded any opportunity to show cause nor he has been given any right of hearing. Therefore, the appointment of Girish Kumar Misra was an illegal and as such it was cancelled. 5. The petitioner has alleged that he has neither been afforded any opportunity to show cause nor he has been given any right of hearing. Para 4 of the ban-order also exempted short term appointment and appointment on leave vacancy. 6. It was contended in the counter-af fidavit as also in the argument advanced by the learned State Counsel, that as the order of appointment was purely on ad hoc basis and only for a limited period the petitioner has got no right to continue in service. 7. It is an admitted fact that the ap pointment of the petitioner was purely on ad hoc basis. The extension granted to the petitioner was up to 14-5-1997. The order of appointment given to the petitioner in pursuance of the order of this Court was also purely on ad hoc basis. 8. It is settled principles of law that an ad hoc appointee has got no right to con tinue in service and his services can be dispensed with at any time. The only bar is that an ad hoc cannot be substituted by another ad hoc. Since no lien was created to the petitioner there is no question of affording any opportunity of hearing. There is no infringement of any right and if there is no infringement of any right there is no question of affording any oppor tunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited a case reported in 1985 UPLBEC 22, Girish Chandra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. , where the petitioner was tem porarily appointed and his services were terminated without giving any oppor tunity of hearing. It was held that the order of termination is against the principles of natural justice. In this ruling the appoint ment of the petitioner was not made on ad hoc basis. Another case referred by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is AIR 1991 SC 309 Shrawan Kumar Jha & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. , In this ruling 175 candidates were appointed whose ap pointments were cancelled. There is noth ing to say that they were appointed on ad hoc basis. In another ruling reported in 1992 UPLBEC 1276, Pratap Singh Rawat v. State of U. P. & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. , In this ruling 175 candidates were appointed whose ap pointments were cancelled. There is noth ing to say that they were appointed on ad hoc basis. In another ruling reported in 1992 UPLBEC 1276, Pratap Singh Rawat v. State of U. P. & Ors. , the petitioner was appointed before 1981 and was promoted in 1981 and then his services were ter minated in 1989. His appointment was ap proved and he was confirmed. It was held that an opportunity of hearing should have been given to him. Without affording opportunity of hearing it could not have been held that his appointment was ir regular. All these rulings do not apply to the facts of the present case. The appoint ment of the present petitioner may or may not have been made against the Govern ment order. He was only an ad hoc appoin tee without having any lien or right to the post. It was not necessary to have provided him an opportunity of hearing. The ques tion of opportunity arises only when a per son has right to continue in service. 10. This writ petition has got no merits and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .